Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[GS250]

I'm a bit torn on this one - is it government overreach or not? The thing that just manages to tip me to the 'support' side is that if they follow the model used in NZ then nobody has their rights taken away. It will continue to be legal for anyone who currently smokes to continue to do so, it just doesn't become legal for anyone for who it currently isn't.

I smoke occasionally. The odd Cuban cigar usually when I'm on holiday or a special occasion. However I don't like to judge those who smoke regularly. My Grandad died at 65 due to smoking. Probably took ten years off his life. However....every photo you see of him he is a man at ease with himself. Absolutely content with his lot in life. And yes there's always a cigarette in his hand.

I think there's far worse things that youngsters need protection from.

 

[Ediswan]

Raising the smoking the age by a year, every year, will have curious effect on one portion of the population.

The day comes for the tobacco buying age to rise by a year. In the following year, approximately 800,000 people will reach that new age and be allowed to buy tobacco. Then the age goes up again and they are back to being forbidden. Repeat. The same 800,000 people would be affected every time. At the extremes, some people will only be allowed to buy tobacco one day each year, and some only forbidden one day each year.

Setting a one time cutoff based on date of birth would be a lot simpler.

 

[birchesgreen]

This cigarettes ban is completely surprising, i wonder if its intentional to deflect attention from other stuff, its going to be a free vote so probably won't happen anyway.

 

[nw1]

The NZ model is the right approach, they're not banning smoking for current smokers but anyone who is not old enough to buy them yet.

In addition to the "state overreaching its powers" argument, it also unworkable? Imagine in 40 years time, will they ID you to prove you're at least 58?

 

[birchesgreen]

In addition to the "state overreaching its powers" argument, it also unworkable? Imagine in 40 years time, will they ID you to prove you're at least 58?

Retailers will be thrilled.

 

[Howardh]

Retailers will be thrilled.

In addition to the "state overreaching its powers" argument, it also unworkable? Imagine in 40 years time, will they ID you to prove you're at least 58?

Yesterday in Spain I was ID's because I wanted a senior ticket for the ferry (60's the min), luckily I did have my passport with me as I was on the way home!!!

 

[nw1]

Yesterday in Spain I was ID's because I wanted a senior ticket for the ferry (60's the min), luckily I did have my passport with me as I was on the way home!!!

Fair enough, but my main point is the lower limit will, for quite a lengthy period, be some random age within working life in which it's difficult to tell which side of the limit you are on just by sight. So they'd end up having to ID everyone apart from people obviously much younger or much older than the random age (33, 46, 58, whatever) which would be quite a bit of effort.

 

[Howardh]

Fair enough, but my main point is the lower limit will, for quite a lengthy period, be some random age within working life in which it's difficult to tell which side of the limit you are on just by sight. So they'd end up having to ID everyone apart from people obviously much younger or much older than the random age (33, 46, 58, whatever) which would be quite a bit of effort.

Indeed, and there's the possibility of two people in the queue, one 40, the other 41, and the 41-yr-old legally buying a couple of packets and giving one away to the 40-yr-old! I assume that the 41 y/o couldn't sell them on (??)

 

[najaB]

Would you say that nobody is having their rights taken away if they are banned from ever having sex because they are currently under the legal age of consent?

Not a valid comparison since they aren't likely to make smoking illegal, rather limit the age at which you can buy tobacco.

Setting a one time cutoff based on date of birth would be a lot simpler.

That the only way it can really work.

I think there's far worse things that youngsters need protection from.

True. But it's possible to do more than one thing at a time.

So they'd end up having to ID everyone apart from people obviously much younger or much older than the random age (33, 46, 58, whatever) which would be quite a bit of effort.

The number of smokers would only be likely to decrease - not that many people take up smoking in their 30's onwards, and they're likely to be outnumbered by the number of people who stop.

 

[nw1]

Indeed, and there's the possibility of two people in the queue, one 40, the other 41, and the 41-yr-old legally buying a couple of packets and giving one away to the 40-yr-old! I assume that the 41 y/o couldn't sell them on (??)

Indeed. Completely unworkable and frankly rather pointless.

But yes, could be to distract from Axeman Sunak's curtailing of the HS2 project.

See also this:

Man forced to sell home for HS2 has 'lost everything'

Roly Bardsley said plans for the high speed route through his property created a decade of hell.

www.bbc.co.uk

If I was Mr Bardsley I'd be getting straight on to a lawyer.

This conference has done one thing. It's shown, beyond a shadow of doubt, the current Conservative Party up for what they are. A nightmare combination of fiscal conservatism and authoritarianism - has any other mainstream western government in post-war times been so clearly in that quarter of the graph?

 

[birchesgreen]

A lot of retailers will stop selling ciggies in the end, be more trouble than its worth.

 

[najaB]

A lot of retailers will stop selling ciggies in the end, be more trouble than its worth.

Yeah, I suspect that it'll become the preserve of specialist shops.

 

[Falcon1200]

See also this:

Man forced to sell home for HS2 has 'lost everything'

Roly Bardsley said plans for the high speed route through his property created a decade of hell.

www.bbc.co.uk

The BBC headline is 'Man forced to sell his home for HS2' however the text shows that he was not forced into anything as his house was not in the path of HS2; He chose to move because of the line's expected proximity. He also says 'I tried to sell it and estate agents laughed at me', yet later in the same article it is clear that he did indeed manage to sell the house! The whole article sounds like standard HS2-bashing.

If I was Mr Bardsley I'd be getting straight on to a lawyer.

On what grounds?

 

[Yew]

The smoking age raise isn't surprising, we've seen in happen in other countries.

Usually it's the refrain of extreme authoritarians though.

Not a valid comparison since they aren't likely to make smoking illegal, rather limit the age at which you can buy tobacco.

How exactly is that different?

I do wonder if this is a "dead cat" to distract from other things though.

 

[DC1989]

It's an interesting policy. It seems to be a direct copy of the New Zealand law. Though I believe they are reducing the number of shops allowed to sell cigarettes by 90% at the same time which we don't seem to be doing.

 

[gg1]

Man forced to sell home for HS2 has 'lost everything'

Roly Bardsley said plans for the high speed route through his property created a decade of hell.

www.bbc.co.uk

If I was Mr Bardsley I'd be getting straight on to a lawyer.

How on earth can he blame HS2 for the failure of his construction business? I'm sure the creditors who collectively were left £45 million out of pocket (as per the the link below) when it failed will have a huge amount of sympathy for his plight:

https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/bardsley-in-administration

 

[najaB]

How exactly is that different?

Because they aren't making the activity illegal. Even if this became law you would still be able to smoke tobacco that you legally acquired - e.g. if purchased it overseas where it was legal to so. Age of consent laws are about the activity itself.

I do wonder if this is a "dead cat" to distract from other things though.

Of course it is.

 

[Herefordian]

As a gay man, I applaud Andrew Boff for challenging Braverman's vile anti-LGBT+ views.

The fact he was ejected and then called "silly" by Braverman for doing so is an absolute disgrace.

Party of free speech? Yeah, I don't think so.

 

[Noddy]

Expect a result somewhere between a small Tory majority propped up by the DUP and labour leading an unstable coalition including Greens, SNP and Libdems that will be lucky to last 18 months.

And if Labour have to goven in coalition or supply and demand with Libdems, SNP snd Greens to get bills through it will be popcorn time for the tories with snother election within two years.

You keep saying this but the last time we had a coalition involving the Lib Dems it lasted 5 years and was never in danger of collapse. It’s pretty obvious now that the Lib Dems, for all their faults, were the only adults in that government. Since 2015 we’ve had one s*** show (and that’s being polite) after another from the Tories. So talk of unstable government from Labour and the Lib Dems is quite frankly ludicrous.

 

[21C101]

You keep saying this but the last time we had a coalition involving the Lib Dems it lasted 5 years and was never in danger of collapse. It’s pretty obvious now that the Lib Dems, for all their faults, were the only adults in that government. Since 2015 we’ve had one s*** show (and that’s being polite) after another from the Tories. So talk of unstable government from Labour and the Lib Dems is quite frankly ludicrous.

Yes because the coalition had a majority of about 80.

A Labour government with a supply and confidence agreement with SNP and Libdems and Green giving a majority of about 9 is another matter entirely.

And however much people are fed up to the back teeth with the tories, the prospect of the SNP in government because Labour can't get a majority (due to SNP having vast majority of Scotland seats) is an anvil round Labours neck.

 

[nw1]

As a gay man, I applaud Andrew Boff for challenging Braverman's vile anti-LGBT+ views.

The fact he was ejected and then called "silly" by Braverman for doing so is an absolute disgrace.

Party of free speech? Yeah, I don't think so.

Indeed, being carted off by the police seems to me very disturbing. It almost comes across as if the self-styled "enemy of the elite", the Cambridge-educated ex-barrister Braverman, is too important to be heckled.

Whoever ordered the police officers to react in this way should hang their heads in shame.

The BBC headline is 'Man forced to sell his home for HS2' however the text shows that he was not forced into anything as his house was not in the path of HS2; He chose to move because of the line's expected proximity. He also says 'I tried to sell it and estate agents laughed at me', yet later in the same article it is clear that he did indeed manage to sell the house! The whole article sounds like standard HS2-bashing.

But at what price?

I think you've misread my problem with today's announcement, though. HS2 isn't the problem, I want to make that clear. The problem is the Government's stupid flip-flopping and cancelling it when the going get's tough, getting people to make sacrifices for it (e.g a drop in the house price) seemingly all for nothing.

They had a plan with HS2, they should have stuck with it. It's sadly typical of the contemporary UK's "can't do" attitude.

 

[JamesT]

Yes because the coalition had a majority of about 80.

A Labour government with a supply and confidence agreement with SNP and Libdems and Green giving a majority of about 9 is another matter entirely.

And however much people are fed up to the back teeth with the tories, the prospect of the SNP in government because Labour can't get a majority (due to SNP having vast majority of Scotland seats) is an anvil round Labours neck.

The total of those four parties in 2010 still doesn’t add up to a majority (326+).

The SNP are unlikely to have influence on the result. The last time Scotland’s seats changed the result was February 1974.

 

[najaB]

And however much people are fed up to the back teeth with the tories, the prospect of the SNP in government because Labour can't get a majority (due to SNP having vast majority of Scotland seats) is an anvil round Labours neck.

If the Conservatives can get a majority but Labour can't under the same circumstances that would be prima facie evidence that electoral reform is needed.

 

[Herefordian]

Indeed, being carted off by the police seems to me very disturbing. It almost comes across as if the self-styled "enemy of the elite", the Cambridge-educated ex-barrister Braverman, is too important to be heckled.

Whoever ordered the police officers to react in this way should hang their heads in shame.

Completely agree on all counts.

I think we've also been shown who the real "snowflakes" are.

 

[Howardh]

As a gay man, I applaud Andrew Boff for challenging Braverman's vile anti-LGBT+ views.

The fact he was ejected and then called "silly" by Braverman for doing so is an absolute disgrace.

Party of free speech? Yeah, I don't think so.

Sickened to the stomach of him now attacking trans people, it's a total non issue to the vast, vast majority yet he picks on a tiny group within the whole population for his sordid dog whistle politics.

Who will be next on his hit list??

 

[brad465]

Sunak has been reported to the police for possible contempt of court based on what he said about Sturgeon in his speech earlier:

Politics latest: Rishi Sunak says alleged comments by Tory donor Frank Hester about Diane Abbott were 'racist'

Rishi Sunak has described alleged comments by Tory donor Frank Hester about Diane Abbott as "racist and wrong" after coming under mounting pressure to call them out. Earlier, Kemi Badenoch broke rank to condemn the comments and Sadiq Khan said the PM should "grow a backbone".

news.sky.com

Rishi Sunak has been reported to Scottish police over comments he made about the former first minister in his Tory conference speech.

Nicola Sturgeon was previously arrested and questioned as part of Police Scotland's investigation into her party's finances, but was later released without charge.

The prime minister, while addressing his party's conference in Manchester, made the comments as he claimed the union between Scotland and the rest of the UK was "the strongest it has been in a quarter of a century".

Chris McEleny, the general secretary of the rival pro-independence Alba Party, has reported Mr Sunak to the force for contempt of court allegations as the prime minister's comments come amid a live police investigation.

He said the investigation should be able to pursue its investigation "fearlessly without interference from Rishi Sunak".

"The prime minister is commenting on, and making an assumption about a live Police Scotland investigation," he said.

"In Scotland contempt applies from arrest, not from charging. Operation Branchform is investigating serious matters of the utmost importance the Scotland and trust in politics."

I'd be surprised though if it gets anywhere, even though Sunak has form for police action.

 

[Noddy]

Yes because the coalition had a majority of about 80.

A Labour government with a supply and confidence agreement with SNP and Libdems and Green giving a majority of about 9 is another matter entirely.

And however much people are fed up to the back teeth with the tories, the prospect of the SNP in government because Labour can't get a majority (due to SNP having vast majority of Scotland seats) is an anvil round Labours neck.

Where you are getting a Lab/LD/SNP/Green majority of 9 from? Electoral Calculus currently have Labour on a majority of 178 with the new boundaries. Lab/LDs combined are on a 228 majority with the new boundaries. This isn’t a 2019 (or even 2017) situation with a divisive Labour leader (Corbyn) and a strong SNP leader (Sturgeon). The SNP have a load of well known MPs standing down, are in full civil war mode and have no money to fight a strong campaign. Most of the seats they loose will go to Labour.

And should the Tories loose, the faithful seem hell bent on electing someone like Braverman, Badenoch or even more bizarrely, Truss, as their leader. If that happens it will be popcorn time for Labour, not the other way round.

 

[Gloster]

I think it is much too early to make even the broadest predictions about the outcome of the next election. So much has changed, is changing and will change: ‘a week is a long time in politics’ (most likely, but not definitely, said by Harold Wilson). Just about the only thing that is clear is that the next election is Labour’s to lose, but the party is good at that.

 

[BJames]

The smoking ban is a really interesting one. I'm 22, but some of my closest friends are 21. I see us as at the exact same stage of life really - for a good friend I met tonight, we both have just graduated university. The thought of me being able to buy something they couldn't, forever more, is quite strange to think about really. I do understand where Sunak is coming from but I will be watching with interest as to how this will work in practice.

 

[4COR]

It's an interesting policy. It seems to be a direct copy of the New Zealand law. Though I believe they are reducing the number of shops allowed to sell cigarettes by 90% at the same time which we don't seem to be doing.

I was going to add this. It's not unworkable in terms of an age limit - you simply state that anyone born after a certain date cannot legally buy tobacco. From a health point of view, there is surely no argument - smoking its proven to shorten life by 10 years on average (Doll, Peto et al.).

The question about what is next in terms of civil liberties is somewhat tougher to reason with.